Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Admits Blocking WikiLeaks' DNC Email Links, But Won't Say Why (thenextweb.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the root-cause dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Facebook has admitted it blocked links to WikiLeaks' DNC email dump, but the company has yet to explain why. WikiLeaks has responded to the censorship via Twitter, writing: "For those facing censorship on Facebook etc when trying to post links directly to WikiLeaks #DNCLeak try using archive.is." When SwiftOnSecurity tweeted, "Facebook has an automated system for detecting spam/malicious links, that sometimes have false positives. /cc," Facebook's Chief Security Officer Alex Stamos replied with, "It's been fixed." As for why there was a problem in the first place, we don't know. Nate Swanner from The Next Web writes, "It's possible its algorithm incorrectly identified them as malicious, but it's another negative mark on the company's record nonetheless. WikiLeaks is a known entity, not some torrent dumping ground. The WikiLeaks link issue has reportedly been fixed, which is great -- but also not really the point. The fact links to the archive was blocked at all suggests there's a very tight reign on what's allowed on Facebook across the board, and that's a problem." A Facebook representative provided a statement to Gizmodo: "Like other services, our anti-spam systems briefly flagged links to these documents as unsafe. We quickly corrected this error on Saturday evening."

5 of 270 comments (clear)

  1. Because money by mveloso · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Clinton is the corporate candidate this cycle. Why would corporations want to harm the candidate that's fighting for them?

  2. The truth by penguinoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "our anti-spam systems briefly flagged links to these documents as unsafe."

    The truth has a long tradition of being considered dangerous.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  3. Sometime a delay is helpful by drnb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So your theory is that FB understands nothing about social networks and has never heard of the Streisand Effect.

    Slow the story for a few days and it doesn't disrupt the news coverage of the Democratic Convention in Philadelphia. The goal is not necessarily to bury the info, sometime a delay is helpful.

  4. Sanders voters will be good little Democrats by drnb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It also explains why a Sanders voter would willingly switch to become a Trump voter

    Bernie will cave in and endorse Hillary so he is not ostracized in Congress and given no committee appointments and otherwise made irrelevant.

    Bernie voters will largely be good little Democrats loyal to the party and vote for Hillary. And they wonder why they are ignored. When a voter is loyal to a party they are irrelevant, the party already has their vote and need not appease them.

    Bernie voters enjoy the few symbolic lines you get in a meaningless party platform that no one ever honors, symbolic lines just like every other forgotten group got in previous party platforms.

  5. Re: The fix is in by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Bernie supporters got swindled out of 220+ million dollars to see Bernie be a shill for Hillary.

    So if someone named Bernie "made off" with your money, should you be A. mad at Bernie, B. mad at yourself for letting yourself getting swindled, C. mad at the system, OR D. all of the above Just curious...

    or E. mad at the Russians (This choice was paid for by the Clinton Campaign)